Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 197 posts

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#111

Post by esoterae »

Aurornis wrote: post #56
abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

How do you propose proving a negative?

I think the civil burden of proof should apply here. Upon the preponderance of the evidence. Given so many studies that exhaustively show correlative effects of phthalates with metabolic and endocrine disruption, especially strongly during developmental stages, I think even that burden of proof is met.

Sure, you can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can make a reasonable determination that given exhaustive study, given correlative negative effects can be ascribed to no other known cause, and given that this is natal and pediatric health especially at stake, we should say until such time as a causative link is proven to lie elsewhere these chemicals should not be used in consumer goods out of an abundance of caution.

The redirection of that claim would be "these profits are more important than moving to protect bodily health especially for those unable to protect themselves, given what we currently know."

Honestly, no knowledge is perfect, but upon the balance we must rest our sacrosanct right to health.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#112

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #87
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #34

My personal experience is that food is overpackaged. I find a lot of produce are unnecessarily bagged in plastic containers (mushrooms, cucumbers, corn, asparagus, berries etc. in my local grocery store). I always feel weird not just about low quality plastic films touching the food, but also that I am constantly throwing out plastic that cannot be recycled.

I wonder if it's to control the spread of mold/fungus. If I have a bunch of berries in a bin, and one of them has mold, I could lose a big chunk of the bin. But if they're in little plastic containers, I only lose that one container. (Yeah, I know, the mold may have spread before they were put in the containers. It still limits the spread, even if it doesn't totally eliminate it.)

I don’t think so because all the berry containers have holes in them. But the other produce don’t have holes and either have a harder but flexible plastic top, or plastic film, or just shrink wrap around the package.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#113

Post by riskable »

afh1 wrote: post #48
austinkhale wrote: post #6

Feels like this is going to become one of those things we look back on in retrospect and regret. We should be full steam ahead on identifying what effects microplastics & phthalates more broadly are having on our health & adjust accordingly. Early indications seem... not great.

Which indications are those? Honest question. I don't know much about this. Since plastic is one of the most biologically neutral/non-interacting materials I've never been too concerned, though I suppose in certain forms and over certain amounts it could be harmful?

Someone already commented about pthalates themselves but I'd also like to point out that a big problem with microplastics isn't the microplastics themselves but the fact that they absorb other chemicals which can then be released/absorbed when they get inside your body or even just on your skin:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/toxic-microplastic...

More:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220216112233.h...

Microplastics are like little buckets for all sorts of toxic compounds and pharmaceuticals (that you probably don't have a prescription for like cancer treatment drugs).

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#114

Post by deciplex »

jjk166 wrote: post #70
abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

You can't prove things are safe, at best you can say harm hasn't been observed under these test conditions. In particular things with accumulative impacts may not show any signs of danger until millions of people have been using them for years. The only valid approach is to collect data as we go and make iterative changes as our understanding improves, we can not count on getting things right at the outset.

> You can't prove things are safe, at best you can say harm hasn't been observed under these test conditions.

Are we doing that?

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#115

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #72
bongodongobob wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh shit a few hundred molecules worth! We are surely doomed.

Not every package and contents within are the same. The plastic containers for prepackaged produce are much lower on my concern list than say Coke and Red Bull type drinks. If you've ever seen what those can do to concrete, you'd really question what it's doing to the plastic linings in the bottles/cans. Someone also mentioned alcohol reacting with the plastics. All of those gas stations where they have pallets of so…

[deleted]

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#116

Post by OutOfHere »

macNchz wrote: post #108
OutOfHere wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple TVOC & HCHO meter at home should imho be a low-cost first step, indicating a need for improved ventilation, or for eliminating questionable sources of the gassing. The alcohol hand sanitizer sets off the TVOC reading though.

I’m not convinced that the TVOC sensor included on consumer air quality monitors does much beyond give people anxiety. Maybe it’s useful if it prompts people to open their windows more often, but mine is so impacted by daily activity and subject to calibration drift to the point I wish it wasn’t part of my sensor unit. Opening a single bottle of beer will spike the levels for hours. It’s a super effective fart detect…

With regard to a new product, I would try seeing the reading first thing in the morning before any human activity.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#117

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kragen wrote: post #82
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't lick the road, though. In terms of it's ability to get into my body, food packaging has a much better pathway than tires.

food packaging doesn't produce microplastics, and you inhale tire dust

Doesn't it? Got any evidence for that claim?

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#118

Post by kragen »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #117
kragen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

food packaging doesn't produce microplastics, and you inhale tire dust

Doesn't it? Got any evidence for that claim?

no, it doesn't. no, i don't have any evidence it doesn't. if you go looking for evidence that it does, though, you won't find any evidence for that, either

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#119

Post by lifeisstillgood »

wil421 wrote: post #91
ActionHank wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies already track whether you smoke, drink, or do recreational drugs. I wonder how long until they start to ask questions that indicate your risk based on chemical \ microplastic consumption.

This reminds me of a banking software company I used to work at. One of their products was assessing risk for loans, too many purchases for fast food or restaurant categories on your bank statement could cause you to not get a loan. I could see insurance companies purchasing your rewards accounts from data brokers to see what your habits are.

That’s a fascinating thought.

Our digital footprints are becoming more telling of our real lives, as more of our lives are mirrored digitally.

And in many ways that’s great - not only is booking a flight easier but my eating habits when combined with millions of others can reveal what epidemiology of yesteryear could only dream of

But I think this is where the privacy debate falls down - privacy is not real (secrecy is real, privacy is the politeness of our neighbours). What is concerning is what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests.

Yes there is a lot of wriggle room in those words but still

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#120

Post by s1artibartfast »

ActionHank wrote: post #74
Aurornis wrote: post #47

I was surprised to learn that some of the highest concentrations of phthalates can be found in alcoholic beverages in glass bottles (Table 3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460375/ ) This occurs due to the plastics used in producing the alcoholic beverages combined with ethanol (alcohol) acting as a solvent to liberate the phthalates I was equally surprised to learn that the food industry was already m…

Insurance companies already track whether you smoke, drink, or do recreational drugs. I wonder how long until they start to ask questions that indicate your risk based on chemical \ microplastic consumption.

This data would only be useful if it was accurate and predictive. I dont see it getting there on either front.
Post reply on HN